AN INTERESTING RACING DISPUTE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1118, 5 October 1883, Page 3

AN INTERESTING RACING DISPUTE.

Attlie civil sittings of tho Snprem** 0 mrt liol • in Holiar; on Sep mnli r5, tle an non of Agnew v. B--H nn'l in Kora cam- on for hearing Imfoni Cili-f -I istico Sir I'Vmeii Smith ami a Jury of two vr, Messrs (Jimm nuil Dol s m for the plaintiff; Messis Miller ami Douglas fur the defend Tlie action was brought to recover L! 5 001) damages from the committee and stoivar.la of tlie Ta-maniau Turf Club for disqualifying the p'aiutiff from running horses on the Tasinani in Turf Club course, and publishing such disqu.alifio ition. The facta of the case are as follows :—At the Launceston races, held on February 10 Mr Agnew’s horse The Assyrian ran second m tlie Cop race won by Rhesus, ami Batty, Assyrian’s j ickey, entered a protest against Rhesus on the ground of h's having run inside a post The case was heard by the stewards and the protest disallowed. At the Hobart races, held on February 20. Rhe»us and the Assy* rian again met m the Hobart Cup, and this time the Assyiian was first and Rhesus second. On the evening of that day a number of gentlemen dined together in the public dining-room at Hadley’s Hotel, amongst them being Mr Asnew and four of the defendants—Messrs Ralston, Curran, Ferguson, and Faulkner. After dinner the conversation turned on the Tasmanian Cop Race, and thereupon an altercation ensued, in which a number of persons took part. Some blows were exchanged, and during the dispute Mr Agnew is reports 1 to have used words to the effect that he had been robbed by the stewards of the Launceston Cup. and had to thank Me-srs Faulkner and Ferguson for it. On March 1 a complaint was lodged by Faulkner against Agnew’s conduct, and on the Bth the secretary of ‘he Turf Chin wrote to Mr Agnew to that effect, ami asking for an explanation, to Hiich Mr Agnew replied that he did not at any time or in any way reflect on tne conduct of the stewards as a body, but ha I a private quarrel with Mr Faulkner, which was no hj -siness of the Committee. S i the matter rested for a couple of mout ’S, till on June 4 tlie secretary of the Tuif Club wrote Mr Agnew, saying that the Committee could not accept his denial that publicly or privately he never accused the stewards of robbing him, in face of the statements of individual stewards, aud adding that the Committee offered him “ the privilege of meeting them and thoroughly investigating the case, otherwise the Committee would act upon the statements made and enforc" the rules of the Club. Mr Agnew replied—“ As your Committee hare refused to taice my word, 1 beg to decline the privilege of appearing before them.” On June 2ti 'he Turf Club published the following notice : —‘‘That Mr C. S. Agnew having been found guilty of improper behavior towards ihe stewards of the Club by having publicly stated they had robbed him of the Launceston Cup in not upholding his pro est against Rhesus, he be disqualified,” etc.

The defendants acted on rule 47 n f their Club, which enacts “That the stewards shall have power to disqualify, for any period they may think lit, any person or persons. . . who may be guilty of disboucst practices or improper behavior tm> wards the stewards or any other oliicer of tne course ; and all the horses which such p -rsoii or persons tray have entered for any race to be run at Launceston, or on any course on which the Tasmanian Turf Oino may in future, hold their meetings, at the time of such dishonest practices iieing found out, or of such improper behavior, shall He disqualified for that meeting.” Tlie. plaintiff and several witnesses on his behalf having been examined, by the leave of the Judge a conference was hj I I between counsel, which resulted in .MrGibliii (pla ntiff’s counseljplacing three of the defendants (Messrs Faulkner, Ferguson, and Curran) in the witness box, to give them an opportunity of denying on oath the imputations of the plaintiff, that they were interested in their verdict on the Rhesus-Assyrian off dr. Tiiis having been done, Mr Gibdii on the part of his client withdrew any such imputation, and expressed regret that any such imputation was made, if it were made. The defendants thereupou withdrew the disqualification of Mr Agnew. His Honor said he was very glal, and felt sure the jury would agree with him, that the matter was settled. The action was of course brought only for vindication of chaiacter, aud n >t to recover a penalty, and the dispute could not have been better settled tli n it had been.